The arguments are nonsense. A summary is Weiss wants to make a case for the administration, which already has the largest platform in the world. If the administration wants to make a case for itself, it has (and has had) ample time to do so. As it stands, there is already a lengthy paper trail of arguments the administration has made in court. These arguments should take precedence over throwaway statements an admin rep might make to a news program.
Briefly, on a couple of them:
- "We then say that only 8 of the 252 have been sentenced in America for violent offenses. But what about charged?" In the US, those people are known as "innocent," whether or not Weiss likes that fact.
- Holding a story until the administration is willing to go on record is exactly the same as giving the administration a veto over a story. We would not have adversarial journalism under these circumstances.
- "The admin has argued in court that detainees are due "judicial review" —and we should explain this" These men were sent for indefinite detention to a concentration camp outside the US borders, and then the administration argued in court that it could not affect any change in their status. This argument from Weiss is transparently false.
This looks like it's targeted at the relationship between Apple and Italian developers. I guess this means Apple could also comply by kicking Italian developers out of the iOS developer program?
Because now I live in an EU country that had (and has) foreign products and services, typically of US origin, that are not officially available in my home EU country, like for example Xbox GamePass for console. Was same with Nextflix till a few years ago. Same with AMEX cards.
So NO, you can definitely provide your services only to specific EU member states if that's what you wish, they can't force you to sell in all countries.
It's called the Shop Like a Local rule, from 2018.
Basically, Apple can stop selling developer accounts in Italy if they wish. They might run into issues on discrimination grounds, but it would probably be a long fight.
However, they can't prevent an Italian developer from purchasing a developer account from another EU country.
I don't understand EU law, but wouldn't the country where the purchase happened be the one whose laws govern the transaction? In other words, if an Italian purchases a developer account from Germany, wouldn't any disputes be handled in German court?
(Also, I would assume Apple would require a developer to have a legitimate physical business address in a country where they allow developers. I don't imagine this would be an easy transaction.)
The opposite -- Italian law governs because the developer is Italian, even if the developer makes the purchase in Germany -- seems untenable even by European standards.
> I don't imagine this would be an easy transaction.
The point of this law is that it must be an easy transaction. I'm sure there are many companies not following the law properly and getting away with it, but it does seem like Apple will be watched closely to ensure they are doing everything correctly, as a result of their malicious compliance with every previous ruling.
What does ("when the foreign customer accepts the conditions applied domestically") mean for a service that is not offered in Italy, but is in Germany? Wouldn't that mean the Italian buyer has to accept the terms offered outside Italy (and thus preclude a case like this one)?
You're right but there has been some progress in that matter.
I.e. streaming providers can't stop you from watching Germany exclusive Netflix content when on holidays in Greece using your German Netflix subscription (only free/ad supported services are allowed to do that)
> nothing has ever been proved by the standards of the criminal justice system
One of my #1 things about reading people's writing is that while everybody is allowed to make mistakes, making this kind of easily-verifiable falsehood a central plank of an argument is discrediting. I honestly don't know why people keep reading him. There are better thinkers and writers who will also tell you that women and people of color are subhuman, he's not the only outlet for that point of view if that's what you're looking to read.
Anyone who writes a newsletter and hosts a broadcast in defense of Epstein's child sex trafficking ring probably should be under some kind of enhanced scrutiny.
Please keep in mind that the Epstein case was argued in open federal court, where he was found guilty and was sentenced. When he died, there were further criminal proceedings pending in two countries.
Hanania's habit of seeing everything in the binary of "woke" vs "not woke" leads him to some incredibly questionable places, as evidenced here. It's "woke" to believe that a convicted child sex trafficker resumed his crimes when released from prison, so Hanania is ideologically forced to take the opposite view that the kerfuffle is mostly hysterics. I honestly don't know why people read him, the quality of thinking and analysis is simply not there. There are much better conservative writers out there who are not currently apologizing for child rapists.
Epstein was definitely guilty of prostituting, at least for himself, girls between 14 and 17 years old. I personally think young women of that age should know better than to be prostitutes for rich guys, and there's no evidence he ever coerced them to do anything. He lured them purely with money and promises of status. There is plenty of testimony of the girls refusing to touch him and they leave, often with money still in-hand and an offer to come back with more girls. They should know they are themselves "child sex traffickers" if they come back with their underaged friends, and they themselves should have been prosecuted along with Epstein and Maxwell.
Teenage girls cannot currently be charged with illegal sex acts when they sleep with older men, but they can be charged with "child sex trafficking" when they offend against other teenage girls.
I would agree that anyone who is specifically named in an Act of Congress requiring that to happen, which Act is then duly signed into law[1], should release their information. That doesn't currently apply to anyone other than the late Jeffrey Epstein, so we are all good.
IME the need for 24x7 for B2B apps is largely driven by global customer scope. If you have customers in North American and Asia, now you need 24x7 (and x365 because of little holiday overlap).
That being said, there are a number of B2B apps/industries where global scope is not a thing. For example, many providers who operate in the $4.9 trillion US healthcare market do not have any international users. Similarly the $1.5 trillion (revenue) US real estate market. There are states where one could operate where healthcare spending is over $100B annually. Banks. Securities markets. Lots of things do not have 24x7 business requirements.
I’ve worked for banks, multiple large and small US healthcare-related companies, and businesses that didn’t use their software when they were closed for the night.
All of those places needed their backend systems to be up 24/7. The banks ran reports and cleared funds with nightly batches—hundreds of jobs a night for even small banking networks. The healthcare companies needed to receive claims and process patient updates (e.g. your provider’s EMR is updated if you die or have an emergency visit with another provider you authorized for records sharing—and no, this is not handled by SaaS EMRs in many cases) over night so that their systems were up to date when they next opened for business. The “regular” businesses closed for the night generated reports and frequently had IT staff doing migrations, or senior staff working on something at midnight due the next day (when the head of marketing is burning the midnight oil on that presentation, you don’t want to be the person explaining that she can’t do it because the file server hosting the assets is down all the time after hours).
And again, that’s the norm I’ve heard described from nearly everyone in software/IT that I know: most businesses expect (and are willing to pay for or at least insist on) 24/7 uptime for their computer systems. That seems true across the board: for big/small/open/closed-off-hours/international/single-timezone businesses alike.
You are right that a lot of systems at a lot of places need 24x7. Obviously.
But there are also a not-insignificant number of important systems where nobody is on a pager, where there is no call rotation[1]. Computers are much more reliable than they were even 20 years ago. It is an Acceptable Business Choice to not have 24x7 monitoring for some subset of systems.
Until very recently[2], Citibank took their public website/user portal offline for hours a week.
1 - if a system does not have a fully staffed call rotation with escalations, it's not prepared for a real off-hours uptime challenge
2 - they may still do this, but I don't have a way to verify right now.
This lasts right up until an important customer can't access your services. Executives don't care about downtime until they have it, then they suddenly care a lot.
You can often have services available for VIPs, and be down for the public.
Unless there's a misconfiguration, usually apps are always visible internally to staff, so there's an existing methodology to follow to make them visible to VIPs.
But sometimes none of that is necessary. I've seen at a 1B market cap company, a failure case where the solution was manual execution by customer success reps while the computers were down. It was slower, but not many people complained that their reports took 10 minutes to arrive after being parsed by Eye Ball Mk 1s, instead of the 1 minute of wait time they were used to.
Uptime is also a sales and marketing point, regardless of real-world usage. Business folks in service-providing companies will usually expect high availability by default, only tempered by the cost and reality of more nines.
Also, in addition to perception/reputation issues, B2B contracts typically include an SLA, and nobody wants to be in breach of contract.
I think the parent you're replying to is wrong, because I've worked at small companies selling into large enterprise, and the expectation is basically 24/7 service availability, regardless of industry.
If you have been a teenager or adult before, you will be familiar with the concept of the clique. For teens, there are athletes, nerds, theater kids, Lululemon kids, etc.
There are cliques of kids who do not use social media (because their parents won't let them, or they don't want to, or they prefer to do something else, or their parents do not use social media, or they cannot afford the devices). Teens who do not use social media sort into different cliques. That's it. They are not ostracized any more than theater kids or computer geeks are ostracized. (The latter inclusion was intentional, as it may cause some self-reflection among well-adjusted adults who at one time were members of school computer clubs.)
Fairly recent teen here. This is simply not true. All my friends who started adamantly against social media had Instagram come end of senior year. At college, I could count on one hand the amount of people I met without it.
I know personally, I was never entirely without social media, but I switched to iPhone because I was so tired of being ostracized with regard to iMessage (this was pre-RCS, perhaps this particular concern has been alleviated)
Sure I guess all the Android users could band together and form a clique and maybe that happened to some extent, but I didn’t wish to associate as an Android user. I don’t imagine kids want “social media Luddite” to be their clique. I wanted to be an outdoorsy kid with tech interests at the most. My choice of phone brand isn’t a part of this identity.
Noted. We have granted an exception for iMessage on the grounds that communications are primarily/wholly with people known IRL.
There's an analogy for older folks, which is kids who grew up without TVs (and radio, in some cases). I am friends with a number of such folks, and they are just fine. I would imagine they too were "ostracized" because they were largely disconnected from pop culture. I imagine they didn't like the situation when they were younger, but it did not damage them like people suggest will happen to kids without access to Instagram.
(Noting also here that as early as tweens, the kids have been using all kinds of stuff as social media sites. Obviously Google Docs etc. But also any unblocked site on the Internet with a textbox, including Asana, Monday, etc. Anywhere with an image upload can be social media.)
> At college, I could count on one hand the amount of people I met without it.
I'm in the US, will say that most students here are over the age of 16 by the time they arrive at college so this would not apply to them.
Would love to get your thoughts on people who "have" social media vs people who abuse (or whatever you want to call it) social media. Is this like cigarettes, where having an account is too much, or more like sweets that can be enjoyed in moderation?
> Would love to get your thoughts on people who "have" social media vs people who abuse (or whatever you want to call it) social media. Is this like cigarettes, where having an account is too much, or more like sweets that can be enjoyed in moderation?
Erm, I feel most comfortable with an analogy to alcohol, perhaps. It has a high capacity to be abused yet is used in moderation by almost everyone. It’s almost incontestably physically harmful yet I still, of my own accord (as contrasted with nicotine which is addictive), choose to partake because there are benefits which I find valuable. I find social events much more enjoyable after a few drinks.
You can measure all these different harms of social media but I do think there are social benefits which are harder to quantify despite the companies who make the platforms being exploitive. It’s nice to see what my friends are doing. It’s nice to have a new avenue to hold conversations with new and old friends, far and near. I know that at points it’s taken a toll on me but today, despite considering myself to be fairly enlightened to the whole situation, I still continue to partake in social platforms and would likely reluctantly allow my children to do the same (I never really had open dialogue with my parents about social media, alcohol, and all these other vices. I turned out alright but I’d like to be there in that sort of sense for my children if I wind up having them in a way that differs to how my parents were.)
Only as many as are needed to physically rack the hardware and do hand-on maintenance. The people actually using the servers shouldn’t be located on-site.
A giant datacenter of AI scale will have a dozen or so contractors for physical plant on-site pretty much every single day as long as the thing is in operation. More if a refresh project is ongoing, which after a few years will be more less all the time.
They certainly are not high density employers, but these huge hyperscale facilities typically employ 150-300 people directly, and probably at least that many on average in contracting roles. They are massive facilities.
Briefly, on a couple of them:
- "We then say that only 8 of the 252 have been sentenced in America for violent offenses. But what about charged?" In the US, those people are known as "innocent," whether or not Weiss likes that fact.
- Holding a story until the administration is willing to go on record is exactly the same as giving the administration a veto over a story. We would not have adversarial journalism under these circumstances.
- "The admin has argued in court that detainees are due "judicial review" —and we should explain this" These men were sent for indefinite detention to a concentration camp outside the US borders, and then the administration argued in court that it could not affect any change in their status. This argument from Weiss is transparently false.
reply